This document summarizes the key findings of a survey conducted on 249 researchers from top institutions in India across 5 disciplines (Economics, Law, Mechanical Engineering, Medicine, and Physics). The survey looked at researchers' practices and attitudes toward open science. Some of the main findings include: - The majority of researchers across disciplines have used openly available publications for their research. However, sharing of publications and data is more limited, with many researchers only sharing with close colleagues. - Lack of open access policies or repositories in their fields, inability to pay publication fees, and lack of awareness are among the top factors discouraging open access publishing and data sharing. - Impact factor and journal reputation are very important factors

1. Addressing theCrisis inScience:
RoleoftheYouthintheOpenScienceMovement
Dr Arul George Scaria
Co-Director, Centre for Innovation, IP and Competition (CIIPC)
Assistant Professor, National Law University, Delhi
WorldYouth Forum
2017
Munich
June 23-25, 2017

2. Context
 2011 - “meat eaters are more selfish and less social than
vegetarians”
 They are insecure people who feel the need to dominate others
 https://www.peta.org/blog/study-meat-eaters-selfish-anti-social/
 Diederik Stapel - social psychologist - University ofTilburg

3. Context
 Utrecht train station experiment -Trash-filled environment tended
to bring out racist tendencies in individuals
 Statistical relationship between awareness of the financial crisis
and generosity
 Use of his data by doctoral students/ post-docs

4. Context
 Two student whistle-blowers
 Final report: Stapel committed fraud in at least 55 of his papers -
10 Ph.D. dissertations written by his students

5. Context
 South Korean stem-cell researcher - HwangWoo Suk
 Harvard evolutionary biologist Marc Hauser
 http://retractionwatch.com/

6. Context  cherry-picking of data -> fabrication of data

7. Context
 More than 70% of researchers have failed to reproduce other
scientists’ experiments [Nature, 2016]

8. Context
 90% of papers that have been published in academic journals are
never cited.
 50% of papers are never read by anyone other than their authors,
referees and journal editors.
 [https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0701/0701012.pdf]

9.  Replicability
 Transparency
 Collaboration
 Inclusiveness
 Quality
 Use of scarce
resources
 Importance of
research
 Accessibility of
research outputs
 Accessibility for
people with
disabilities
 Interaction
between science
and society
GLOBAL CRISIS

10. WHAT IS OPEN
SCIENCE?
 Scientific inquiries wherein the characteristics of openness,
collaboration, transparency, availability, accessibility, constant
and continuous transfer of knowledge between producers and
users of knowledge, prioritisation of research based on social
needs, and non-existence/ minimal existence of IP restrictions are
perceptible and exist throughout all stages of research.
 http://ciipc.org/projects/open-science-for-an-innovative-india/

11. CHARACTERISTICS
OF OPEN SCIENCE
 Encompasses most of the ‘open’ movements like open access,
open data, open lab notes and open research tools
 Focuses on all stages of science, unlike other open movements
which largely focus on consumption side
 ‘Transparency’ - transparency in methodology, research tools,
research data and generation/ communication/ presentation of
results
 ‘Accessibility’ - availability in online/digital formats at marginal
costs; enables disabled friendly scientific inquiry
 ‘Open data’ - data for reuse and redistribution - proper metadata –
data published as early as practical
 High priority to open problems and citizen science

12. IMPORTANCE
OF OPEN
SCIENCE
 Enhanced collaboration and transparency
 Optimal use of scarce resources
 More effective and efficient scientific inquiry
 Rapid diffusion of knowledge/ improved impact of research
 Democratisation of science
 Support for the innovation ecosystem

13. SURVEY
METHODOLOGY
SURVEY DESIGN: Questionnaire - 45 questions - in English
SAMPLING: Researchers from five disciplines (Economics, Law,
Mechanical Engineering, Medicine, and Physics) belonging to top
three research institutions (physics – only two) in their respective
fields in India – Institutions selected with the help of scholars
working in those disciplines
MODE OF DATA COLLECTION: Online survey links sent to institutional
email id - In case of insufficient response from an institution,
personal visits by researchers to those institutions

14. FACTORS
INFLUENCING
DECISIONTO
BECOME
RESEARCHER/
SCIENTIST
(%)
25
0
24.62
36.76
46.3
37.5
41.3
36.92
38.24
24.07
12.5
4.35
6.15
4.41 3.7
6.25
17.39
15.38
19.12
11.11
68.75
67.39
64.62
51.47
81.48
31.25
32.61 32.31
33.82
29.63
12.5
2.17
4.62
2.94
9.26
0
6.52
1.54
8.82
3.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Economics (n= 16) Law (n= 46) Mech Engg (n= 65) Medicine (n=68) Physics (n= 54)
Contribute to progress in science Contribute to soceity/ addressing social needs
Financial reasons Professional gains
Enjoyment/ intellectual pleasure Intellectual growth
Family/ peer influence Others
N = 249

15. FORYOUR
RESEARCH, HAVE
YOU EVER USED
ANY
PUBLICATIONS
AVAILABLE
OPENLY ONTHE
INTERNET? 0 0
12.28
4.08 6.82
13.33
5.41
29.82
16.33
18.18
86.67
94.59
57.89
79.59
75
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Economics (n= 15) Law (n= 37) Mech Engg (n= 57) Medicine (n= 50) Physics (n= 47)
I don't know No Yes
N= 206

16. SHARING
PRACTICES OF
RESPONDENTS
(PUBLICATIONS)
(%) 3.85
3.03
2.56
0
0
3.85
3.03
7.69
3.85
15.38
19.23
3.03
25.64
34.62
38.46
69.23
30.3
51.28
61.54
76.92
19.23
27.27
38.46
53.85
30.77
19.23
24.24
28.21
15.38
38.46
50
54.55
48.72
50
53.85
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Physics (n= 35)
Medicine (n= 43)
Mech Engg (n= 40)
Law (n= 26)
Economics (n= 13)
Researchers working in the same team Any researcher working in the same institution
With close friends/ trusted acquaintances With anyone who asks
OA repository Personal website w/o restriction
Not shared with anyone
N= 157

17. SHARING
PRACTICES OF
RESPONDENTS
(DATA)
(%) 3.85
3.03
13.79
16.67
12.5
3.85
3.03
6.9
0
0
19.23
3.03
10.34
0
0
69.23
30.3
27.59
38.89
62.5
19.23
27.27
34.48
38.89
0
19.23
24.24
20.69
11.11
25
50
54.55
51.72
38.89
37.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Physics (n= 35)
Medicine (n= 43)
Mech Engg (n= 40)
Law (n= 26)
Economics (n= 13)
Researchers working in the same team Any researcher working in the same institution
With close friends/ trusted acquaintances With anyone who asks
OA repository Personal website w/o restriction
Not shared with anyone
N= 157

18. FACTORS
DISCOURAGING
FROM
PUBLISHING
THROUGH OA
MODES
(%)
31.03
7.69
15.38
30.77
45.45
3.45
0
15.38
11.54
18.18
48.28
51.28
20.51
3.85
18.18
48.28
58.97
41.03
26.92
54.55
3.45
10.26
12.82
23.08
9.09
3.45
2.56
10.26
15.38
9.09
10.34
5.13
17.95
23.08
18.18
6.9
7.69
20.51
23.08
36.36
10.34
10.26
5.13
11.54
27.27
0 50 100 150 200 250
Physics (n= 29)
Medicine (n= 39)
Mech Engg (n= 39)
Law (n= 26)
Economics (n= 11)
OA option unavailable in journals where they wanted to publish
No reputed OA journal in field
Inability to fund APC
Unwillingness to pay APC
Unawareness of options for OA publishing
Fear that their publications may be used by others for professional benefits
Fear of plagiarism
Wanted to improve quality before sharing openly
Did not consider it important
N= 144

19. FACTORS
DISCOURAGING
FROM SHARING
DATA OPENLY
(%)
20
10
22.86
4.55
12.5
10
17.5
11.43
4.55
25
6.67
17.5
14.29
9.09
12.5
3.33
2.5
5.71
9.09
0
0
10
8.57
9.09
0
23.33
10
8.57
13.64
12.5
16.67
17.5
17.14
9.09
12.5
0
5
0
13.64
12.5
33.33
22.5
22.86
27.27
12.5
50
47.5
45.71
45.45
75
20
17.5
5.71
9.09
12.5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Physics (n= 30)
Medicine (n= 40)
Mech Engg (n= 35)
Law (n= 22)
Economics (n= 8)
No reputed OD repository in the field
Institution does not mandare sharing of data
Funding agency does not mandage sharing of data
Data has commercial value for organisation
Lack of adequate resources to upload data to OD repositories
Lack of time to upload to OD repositories
Fear that data may be used by others for professional purposes
Not confident with quality of data
Can share only after proper curation
Can share only when all research/ publications based on data are completed
Don't consider it important
N= 135

20. IMPORTANT
FACTORS
INFLUENCING
PUBLISHING
0
5.88
1.79 0
4.55
7.69
14.71
3.57
2.04
4.55
15.38
5.88
23.21
10.2
15.91
38.46
47.06 42.86
48.98
45.45
38.46
26.47 28.57
38.78
29.55
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Economics (n= 13) Law (n= 34) Mech Engg (n= 56) Medicine (n= 49) Physics (n= 44)
IMPACT FACTOR OF JOURNAL
Not at all Important Slightly Important Moderately Important Important Very Important
N= 196

21. IMPORTANT
FACTORS
INFLUENCING
PUBLISHING
0
2.86 1.79 0 00
2.86 3.57
2.04 2.27
18.18
2.86 5.36 10.2
13.64
36.36
42.86
48.21 42.86
43.18
45.45
48.57
41.07
44.9
40.91
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Economics (n= 11) Law (n= 35) Mech Engg (n= 56) Medicine (n= 49) Physics (n= 44)
REPUTATION OF JOURNAL/ PUBLISHER
Not at all Important Slightly Important Moderately Important Important Very Important
N= 195

22. IMPORTANT
FACTORS
INFLUENCING
PUBLISHING
33.33
9.09
20.37
12.5
26.67
25
15.15
11.11
10.42
22.22
33.33
33.33
31.48
25
17.78
8.33
30.3
27.78
33.33
20
0
12.12 9.26
18.75
13.33
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Economics (n= 12) Law (n= 33) Mech Engg (n= 54) Medicine (n= 48) Physics (n= 45)
OPEN ACCESS POLICY OF JOURNAL/ PUBLISHER
Not at all Important Slightly Important Moderately Important Important Very Important
N= 192

23. IMPORTANT
FACTORS
INFLUENCING
PUBLISHING
46.45
12.12
18.18
6.12
24.44
15.38
12.12
9.09
16.33
13.33
23.08
24.24 21.82
20.41
33.33
15.38
42.42
30.91
30.61
24.44
0
9.09
20
26.53
4.44
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Economics (n= 13) Law (n= 33) Mech Engg (n= 55) Medicine (n= 49) Physics (n= 45)
COPYRIGHT OWNERSHIP POLICY OF JOURNAL/
PUBLISHER
Not at all Important Slightly Important Moderately Important Important Very Important
N= 195

24. IMPORTANT
FACTORS
INFLUENCING
PUBLISHING
7.69
18.75 16.98
2.04
6.67
0
3.13 5.66
8.16
24.44
38.46
21.88 20.75
10.2
22.22
23.08 28.13 28.3
30.61
22.22
30.77 28.13 28.3
48.98
24.44
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Economics (n= 13) Law (n= 32) Mech Engg (n= 53) Medicine (n= 49) Physics (n= 45)
PAYMENTTO BE MADETO JOURNAL/ PUBLISHER FOR
PUBLICATION
Not at all Important Slightly Important Moderately Important Important Very Important
N= 192

25. FREQUENCY OF
PUBLISHING
SIMPLIFIED
VERSION OF
RESEARCH
FINDINGS FOR
LAYPERSONS 15.38
32.26 30.77
47.83
38.1
30.77
25.81
51.92 21.74
21.43
46.15 25.81
15.38
10.87 33.33
7.69
3.23
1.92
13.04
4.76
0
12.9
0
6.52
2.38
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Economics (n= 13) Law (n= 31) Mech Engg (n= 52) Medicine (n= 46) Physics (n= 42)
Note: The words ‘Never’, ‘Rarely’, Occasionally’, ‘Frequently’, and ‘Always’ were not defined by us
and were subject to respondents’ subjective interpretation
Never Rarely Occasionally Frequently Always
N= 184

26. FREQUENCY OF
PUBLISHING
TRANSLATED
VERSION OF
RESEARCH IN
REGIONAL
LANGUAGE(S)
100
80.65
88.89 91.3
80
0
19.35 1.85
2.17
13.33
0 0
9.26 2.17
6.67
0 0 0
4.35
00 0 0 0 0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Economics (n= 13) Law (n= 31) Mech Engg (n= 54) Medicine (n= 46) Physics (n= 45)
Note: The words ‘Never’, ‘Rarely’, Occasionally’, ‘Frequently’, and ‘Always’ were not defined by us
and were subject to respondents’ subjective interpretation
Never Rarely Occasionally Frequently Always
N= 189

27. DO
RESEARCHERS
WORKING IN
YOUR
INSTITUTION
ROUTINELY
SHARE:
15.38
35.48
25
6.98
14.63
0
19.35
11.54
4.65
9.76
84.62
45.16
63.46
88.37
75.61
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Economics (n= 13) Law (n= 31) Mech Engg (n= 52) Medicine (n= 43) Physics (n= 41)
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
I don't know No Yes
N= 180

28. DO
RESEARCHERS
WORKING IN
YOUR
INSTITUTION
ROUTINELY
SHARE:
44.44
53.33 51.92
24.39
52.5
22.22
30
28.85
17.07
15
33.33
16.67 19.23
58.54
32.5
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Economics (n= 9) Law (n= 30) Mech Engg (n= 52) Medicine (n= 41) Physics (n= 40)
NEGATIVE RESULTS
I don't know No Yes
N= 172

29. MANDATE BY
FUNDING
AGENCY/
INSTITUTIONTO
SHARE:
8.33
26.92 23.4 19.51 20
25
19.23
6.38
34.15
22.5
8.33
15.38
19.15
24.39
7.58.33
11.54
6.38
4.88
2.5
50
26.92
44.68
17.07
47.5
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Economics (n= 12) Law (n= 26) Mech Engg (n= 47) Medicine (n= 41) Physics (n= 40)
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Neither Both Institution Funding Agency I don't know
N= 166

30. MANDATE BY
FUNDING
AGENCY/
INSTITUTIONTO
SHARE:
20
41.67
31.91
23.68
36.11
20
16.67
2.13
23.68
5.56
10
8.33
14.89
28.95
2.78
0
4.17
2.13
0
5.56
50
29.17
48.94
23.68
50
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Economics (n= 10) Law (n= 24) Mech Engg (n= 47) Medicine (n= 38) Physics (n= 36)
NEGATIVE RESULTS
Neither Both Institution Funding Agency I don't know
N= 155

31. INSTITUTIONAL
FACILITIES
AVAILABLE FOR
RESEARCHERS
WITH PHYSICAL
DISABILITIES
2.63
0
0
3.13
9.09
0
21.21
1.96
6.25
0
23.68
15.15
13.73
9.38
9.09
5.26
3.03
13.73
12.5
27.27
2.63
0
7.84
12.5
9.09
2.63
0
9.8
28.13
0
36.84
30.3
47.06
46.88
81.82
57.89
57.58
76.47
56.25
72.73
81.58
69.7
94.12
81.25
90.91
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Physics (n= 38)
Medicine (n= 33)
Mech Engg (n= 51)
Law (n= 32)
Economics (n= 11)
Ramp facilities Wheelchair facilities
Restrooms for persons with disability Audiobooks
Braille textbooks Disabled-friendly lab
Flexible leave policy None of the above
Other
N= 165

32. STEPSTAKEN BY
THE INSTITUTION
TO MAKE
RESEARCH
ACCESSIBLETO
PERSONSWITH
DISABILITIES
75
81.82 83.02
87.8 91.11
16.67
12.12
3.77
7.32
6.678.33 6.06
13.21
4.88 2.22
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Economics (n= 12) Law (n= 33) Mech Engg (n= 53) Medicine (n= 41) Physics (n= 45)
I don't know No Yes
N= 184

33. FAILURETO
REPRODUCE
SCIENTIFIC
STUDIES IS A
MAJOR PROBLEM
INTHE FIELD
0 0 2.27 2.44 2.56
12.5
5.26
15.91 12.2
25.64
37.5
63.16
29.55
31.71
28.21
12.5
26.32
43.18
34.15
30.77
37.5
5.26
9.09
19.51
12.82
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Economics (n= 8) Law (n= 19) Mech Engg (n= 44) Medicine (n= 41) Physics (n= 39)
Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree
N= 151

34. SATISFACTION
WITH
INSTITUTIONAL
RULESWITH
REGARDTO:
57.14
14.29
2.44
8.11 9.68
0
0 21.95
18.92 12.9
28.57
52.38
36.59
45.95
45.16
14.29
28.57
19.51
18.92
19.35
0
4.76
19.51
8.11
3.23
0 0 0 0
9.68
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Economics (n= 7) Law (n= 21) Mech Engg (n= 41) Medicine (n= 37) Physics (n= 31)
OPEN ACCESSTO PUBLICATIONS
Institutional policy does not exist Extremely satisfied
Satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Dissatisfied Extremely dissatisfied
N= 137

35. SATISFACTION
WITH
INSTITUTIONAL
RULESWITH
REGARDTO:
57.14
23.81
2.5
8.11
17.24
0
0
20
21.62
6.9
14.29
47.62
32.5
40.54
27.59
28.57
23.81
30
27.03
34.48
0
4.76
15
2.7
3.45
0 0 0 0
10.34
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Economics (n= 7) Law (n= 21) Mech Engg (n= 40) Medicine (n= 37) Physics (n= 29)
OPEN ACCESSTO DATA
Institutional policy does not exist Extremely satisfied
Satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Dissatisfied Extremely dissatisfied
N= 134

36. ATTEMPT MADE BY
RESEARCHERTO
CHANGE RULES/
PRACTICES INTHEIR
INSTITUTION WITH
REGARDTO:
16.67
7.41
30.43 30 28.21
0
7.41
8.7 12.5
7.6933.33 33.33
28.26 22.5
15.38
50 51.85
32.61 35
48.72
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Economics (n= 12) Law (n= 27) Mech Engg (n= 46) Medicine (n= 40) Physics (n= 39)
HOW RESEARCH IS CONDUCTED
I have never felt the need to try to change the rules/ practices Frequently Occasionally Never
N= 164

37. ATTEMPT MADE BY
RESEARCHERTO
CHANGE RULES/
PRACTICES INTHEIR
INSTITUTION WITH
REGARDTO:
16.67
7.41
28.89 30 28.95
0
7.41
8.89 7.5
5.2633.33 33.33
17.78
22.5
18.42
50 51.85
44.44
40
47.37
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Economics (n= 12) Law (n= 27) Mech Engg (n= 45) Medicine (n= 40) Physics (n= 38)
HOW RESEARCH IS DISSEMINATED
I have never felt the need to try to change the rules/ practices Frequently Occasionally Never
N= 162

38. ROLEOFTHE
YOUTH:
 Challenge the status quo

39. ROLE OFTHEYOUTH:
HELP IN CREATIONOF
AN ENVIRONMENT
THAT INCENTIVISES
SHARING
 Persuade institutions to include a researcher’s record of sharing
practices in evaluating recruitment applications - Particularly, data
sharing practices
 Persuade funding agencies to consider a researcher’s record of
sharing practices (publications and data) while evaluating grant
applications – Evaluation of past compliance with open access/
open data policies, and mandatory inclusion of data sharing plans
in the project proposal

40. ROLE OFTHEYOUTH:
STRENGTHENTHE
OPEN MOVEMENTS
 Join the open movement
 Help in increasing awareness about the importance of sharing
outputs of research
 Practice and encourage data citations, which is currently
insufficient - may create incentives for data sharing
 Unwillingness/ inability to pay APCs is a major factor that deters
researchers from publishing in OA modes - OA modes need to be
rethought and a shift from gold to platinum OA modes is
necessary

41. ROLE OFTHEYOUTH:
INCREASING
INCLUSIVENESS IN
PRODUCTIONAND
CONSUMPTIONOF
SCIENCE
 Make institutions more inclusive - provision of Braille textbooks,
audiobooks, etc. extremely important
 In order to enable social engagement and citizen science,
 Simplified versions of scientific research
 Translations of research outputs in regional languages
 Initiatives like ‘Open Day’

42. ROLE OFTHEYOUTH:
INCREASING
TRANSPARENCY
 Persuade institutions to create stronger policies for sharing
negative results, errors in data/ research, and other limitations

43. ROLE OFTHEYOUTH:
INCREASING
ROBUSTNESSOF
POLICIES
 Our data shows that most respondents:
 don’t have institutional/ funding agency policies relating to IP
ownership, publication, sharing, licensing, etc.
 are not aware of such policies
 This implies that in most cases, policies either are non-existent or
do not have clear/ strong compliance mechanisms
 Persuade institutions and funding agencies to have:
 open access and open data policies with strong compliance
mechanisms

44.  Gandhi: “If we could change ourselves, tendencies in the world
would also change… As a man changes his own nature, so does
the attitude of the world changes towards him… We need not wait
to see what others do.”

45. Thanks to Rishika Rangarajan,
Satheesh Menon, Shreyashi Ray
and all other members of the Open
Science ProjectatCIIPC
ThankYou!
arul.scaria@nludelhi.ac.in
@arulscaria
@openscience_in